O’Donnell, Elitism and the Midterm Elections

Another one of Christine O’Donnell’s campaign advertisements based on her “I’m You” strategy has hit the internet and televisions everywhere:

Yes, the advertisement is problematic because of O’Donnell’s re-use of the “I’m You” rhetorical strategy, but it is also a very important advertisement because of the new way O’Donnell is using the “I’m you” strategy to gain votes. Rather than use the 30 available seconds to dispel myths about her past actions and statements, this time around O’Donnell focuses on the ways she is more like “you” than Chris Coons is because of his supposedly out of touch Ivy League education and upper class economic status. Her advertisement, although unoriginal in its execution, is highly representative of the way America is beginning to splinter along class and educational lines in the current election. Maureen Dowd addresses this emerging divide in her recent New York Times article “Making Ignorance Chic,” in which she attacks Sarah Palin for making ignorance fashionable for up and coming GOP candidates such as O’Donnell, who perpetuate the idea that Democrats like Coons are out of touch elitists because their educational and socioeconomic backgrounds aren’t necessarily similar to or the same as the population they seek to represent.

What is problematic about this sort of “I’m you because we have a similar educational background and class status” campaign strategy is the way it creates an “us versus them” mentality amongst Americans. It positions anyone who is well educated or wealthy as unable to identify with those who may be less educated or less wealthy (and vice versa) regardless of other factors such as gender, religious beliefs, age, race, sexuality, etc. Chris Coons shouldn’t have to apologize for his Yale education or the fact that he was born into a wealthy family any more than someone of Middle Eastern descent should be labeled a terrorist because of their skin color or religious beliefs. If O’Donnell doesn’t like being held accountable for things she said on national television in the 1990s  about witches and masturbation then she shouldn’t be holding Coons accountable for the social class he was born into, which, frankly, he had no control over. Additionally, O’Donnell wouldn’t want voters to not vote for her because she didn’t attend an Ivy League or equivalent institution of higher education or her class status. Frankly, I applaud Coons for his ability to not feed into her antagonistic games. He could have easily attacked her educational and/or class background to claim why she is unqualified she is for the position she is aiming to attain through campaign advertisements, but rather he chose to display her general ignorance of American government and the Constitution during a debate at the Widener School of Law in order to position himself as the better candidate.

Moreover, the widespread focus on liberal/Democratic elitism by Republicans/TEA Party members in the 2010 campaign season baffles me.For O’Donnell to claim she is any less of an elitist than Coons is laughable: for someone to think that they are qualified to represent others on a local, national, or international scale is inherently elitist and, I might add, a bit narcissistic. For example, O’Donnell–like many other politicians before her–has grounded her campaign in the superiority of her socio-cultural and religious beliefs as well as her so-called knowledge of and ability to represent real American values.Is this not another form of elitism? She may not have gone to Yale or received a family inheritance, but she is claiming a privileged and elite status (although she would never explicitly call it that) based on her social and religious values.

So, why is the O’Donnell advertisement important for feminism? Well, aside from O’Donnell’s blatant anti-feminist/anti-woman agenda, the advertisement is an important reminder to feminists to not allow things like educational background, class status, race, religion, sexuality, age, etc. to divide us. Like Coons, Second Wave feminists from different ideological and activist camps attacked one another for their conflicting and/or different backgrounds–most of which could not be changed or disidentified from nor should they have been. Obviously a person’s background affects their beliefs and practices, but it should not serve to constrain people within a certain identity. We are all constantly being shaped and reshaped by the incessant collision of social forces that we come across in life. We are not static beings nor are we incapable of intellectual and social evolution. If O’Donnell can teach us anything it is that we must be careful to not return to the divisive identity politics and negative focus on elitism in both feminist and other forms of political activism. Rather, as feminists, we must set our sights on tackling the issues that effect women across racial, educational, economic, age, and religious lines such as reproductive rights, comprehensive sex education, equal pay, access to higher education, and violence against women, to name a few. Focusing on the important issues is going to be the strongest form of social, economic, and political change for feminists today and in the future.